Explaining difference between Disney Classics & Sequels

[2099net]

It's easy. The Originals are the slow paced, sexist, dated films. The Sequels are the faster paced, more action driven and entertaining films.

[Ducks and covers]

Really it's quite simple. It's just like how you would explain the current trend for remakes for movies these days. It's the company wanted to make a quick buck by cashing in on previous successful films. The only difference is, these are basically TV Movies of the Week, not theatrical movies.

[Rudy Matt]

And no offense, Bambi 2 should have been in theaters - it's great.

Well, the animals didn't sing and stage musical numbers in Walt's film. And in Walt's film, there were few words of dialog, and what there was had a kind of elegant simplicity. "Your mother can't be with you anymore" and "Man was in the forest" and "The meadow is wide and open and there are no trees or bushes to hide us. So we must be very careful. Wait here. I'll go out first. And if the meadow is safe...I'll call you."

Bambi II? Well, you get such terrific and memorable lines of dialog as "A Prince does not say woo-hoo."

So I'm not saying Bambi II, taken completely on its own merits, might be an entertaining film. But as a movie that pretends to be a continuation of Bambi's 2nd act leading to the 3rd act seen in the Disney and Franklin film, it's sort of an embarassment.

[Neal]

Correct Release Dates of Disney Films?

So someone pointed out to me that there's conflicting release dates for the Disney classics, what's the right dates? Depending upon where I look, the years are listed differently!

Here's two lists I found.

Which one's right. Are either of them right? I just want to know the year the films released.

1937 –Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs
1940 –Pinocchio
1940 –Fantasia
1941 –Dumbo
1942 –Bambi
1943 –Saludos Amigos
1945 –The Three Caballeros
1946 –Make Mine Music
1947 –Fun and Fancy Free
1948 –Melody Time
1949 –The Adventures of Ichabod and Mr. Toad
1950 –Cinderella
1951 –Alice in Wonderland
1953 –Peter Pan
1955 –Lady and the Tramp
1959 –Sleeping Beauty
1961 –101 Dalmatians
1963 –The Sword and the Stone
1967 –The Jungle Book
1970 –The Aristocats
1973 –Robin Hood
1977 –The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh
1977 –The Rescuers
1981 –The Fox and the Hound
1985 –The Black Cauldron
1986 –The Great Mouse Detective
1988 –Oliver & Company
1989 –The Little Mermaid
1990 –The Rescuers Down Under
1991 –Beauty and the Beast
1992 –Aladdin
1994 –The Lion King
1995 –Pocahontas
1996 –The Hunchback of Notre Dame
1997 –Hercules
1998 –Mulan
1999 –Tarzan
2000 –Fantasia 2000
2000 –Dinosaur
2001 –The Emperor’s New Groove
2001 –Atlantis: The Lost Empire
2002 –Lilo and Stitch
2002 –Treasure Planet
2003 –Brother Bear
2004 –Home on the Range
2005 –Chicken Little
2007 –Meet the Robinsons
2008 –BOLT


Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937) • Pinocchio (1940) • Fantasia (1940) • Dumbo (1941) • Bambi (1942) • Saludos Amigos (1942) • The Three Caballeros (1944) • Make Mine Music (1946) • Fun and Fancy Free (1947) • Melody Time (1948) • The Adventures of Ichabod and Mr. Toad (1949) • Cinderella (1950) • Alice in Wonderland (1951) • Peter Pan (1953) • Lady and the Tramp (1955) • Sleeping Beauty (1959) • One Hundred and One Dalmatians (1961) • The Sword in the Stone (1963) • The Jungle Book (1967) • The Aristocats (1970) • Robin Hood (1973) • The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh (1977) • The Rescuers (1977) • The Fox and the Hound (1981) • The Black Cauldron (1985) • The Great Mouse Detective (1986) • Oliver & Company (1988) • The Little Mermaid (1989) • The Rescuers Down Under (1990) • Beauty and the Beast (1991) • Aladdin (1992) • The Lion King (1994) • Pocahontas (1995) • The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1996) • Hercules (1997) • Mulan (1998) • Tarzan (1999) • Fantasia 2000 (1999) • Dinosaur (2000) • The Emperor's New Groove (2000) • Atlantis: The Lost Empire (2001) • Lilo & Stitch (2002) • Treasure Planet (2002) • Brother Bear (2003) • Home on the Range (2004) • Chicken Little (2005) • Meet the Robinsons (2007) • Bolt (2008) • The Princess and the Frog (2009) • Rapunzel (2010) • King of the Elves (2012)

[Escapay]

Was there a separate features division in the 1930s? I've always had the impression the studio was all of a piece at the time, and the dividing up of the company into different business aspects happened much later.

I always assumed that since production began on Snow White in 1934, that the company/studio decided to divide their employees to work on either shorts (Mickey Mouse, Silly Symphonies) or on features (Snow White, forthcoming features, etc.), but not necessarily both at the same time (example: JoeBob Smith and BobJoe Smith were both hired in 1933, then in 1934 JoeBob was moved to the new Features division while BobJoe remained in the Shorts division). Of course, that may not have been the case, and either way, it's a moot point in regards to when the first Disney studio was created.

So someone pointed out to me that there's conflicting release dates for the Disney classics, what's the right dates? Depending upon where I look, the years are listed differently!

Here's two lists I found.

Which one's right. Are either of them right? I just want to know the year the films released.

The years are the same in both lists except for Saludos, Amigos (listed as 1942 and 1943), The Three Caballeros (listed as 1944 and 1945), and Fantasia 2000 (listed as 1999 and 2000). In the case of the two Latin American films, the first year given is when the films premiered, while the second year is when they went into wide release. For Fantasia 2000, people erroneously believe it was released in 2000 (due to the year being in the title), but it premiered December 17, 1999 and went into wide release December 31, 1999. So technically while it was in theatres in 2000, it started in 1999.

If you want to keep an accurate list, you'll likely need to consider the premiere date versus the release date for all the films (where the premiere/release aren't the same). For example, aside from the three examples above (SA/TTC/F2K), Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs premiered on December 21, 1937, but didn't go into wide release until February 4, 1938. And while Fantasia premiered on November 13, 1940 (in its roadshow form, which ran in major cities for a few years), there wasn't a wide release of the film until January 6, 1942 (in its infamous cut-down 81-minute version).

albert

[Neal]

What do you think would make more sense. I'm asking this for the school paper, also. I want to write a timeline of the Disney canon. Would it make more sense to do premiere date or wide release date?

I'm thinking wide release because those dates are the dates the students would have been able to see the film.

But the premiere would be the true release.

Also, the Emperor's New Groove has conflicting dates.

So is it the bottom list that has the wide release, then?

[Escapay]

What do you think would make more sense. I'm asking this for the school paper, also. I want to write a timeline of the Disney canon. Would it make more sense to do premiere date or wide release date?

I'm thinking wide release because those dates are the dates the students would have been able to see the film.

But the premiere would be the true release.

I personally would go for the premiere date, though for the Latin American films, I always went by the wide release date, since the actual premieres weren't even in the US (SA was in Rio de Janiero, TTC was in Mexico City).

Also, the Emperor's New Groove has conflicting dates.

Yeah, that totally slipped by me without realising it. It was first released in late 2000 (don't have the specific date on-hand), and I know that it got big during the post-Christmas season (since after December 25, no one really had a reason to watch The Grinch anymore).

Anyway, if you need to know more about Disney, there's plenty of books on the subject. As always, Lars Vermundsberget (a UD poster who doesn't post often anymore but should) has a thorough list of Disney books, which I'm copy/pasting here...

Allan, Robin. Walt Disney and Europe. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1999.

Bell, Elizabeth, Lynda Haas and Laura Sells (editors). From Mouse to Mermaid: the Politics of Film, Gender and Culture. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1995.

Canemaker, John. Before the animation begins. New York: Hyperion, 1996.

Canemaker, John. Paper Dreams: The Art and Artists of Disney Storyboards. New York: Hyperion, 1999.

Canemaker, John. Treasures of Disney Animation Art. New York: Abbeville, 1982.

Canemaker, John. Walt Disney’s Nine Old Men and the Art of Animation. New York: Disney Editions, 2001.

Cotter, Bill. The Wonderful World of Disney Television. New York: Hyperion, 1997.

Culhane, John. Fantasia 2000: Vision of Hope. New York: Disney Editions, 1999.

Culhane, John. Walt Disney’s Fantasia. Reprint. Originally published: New York: Abrams, 1983.

Eisner, Michael D. (foreword). Walt Disney Imagineering. New York: Hyperion, 1996.

Eliot, Marc. Walt Disney: Hollywood’s Dark Prince. New York: Birch Lane Press, 1993.

Fanning, Jim (text). The Disney Poster: From Mickey Mouse to Aladdin. New York: Hyperion, 1993.

Feild, Robert D. The Art of Walt Disney. New York: Macmillan, 1942.

Ferraiuolo, Perucci. Disney and the Bible. Camp Hill, PA: Horizon Books, 1996.

Finch, Christopher. The Art of The Lion King. New York: Hyperion, 1994.

Finch, Christopher. The Art of Walt Disney. New York: Abrams, 1973.

Finch, Christopher. The Art of Walt Disney. Updated edition. New York: Abrams, 1995.

Fjellman, Stephen M. Vinyl Leaves: Walt Disney World and America. Boulder, San Francisco and Oxford: Westview, 1992.

Giroux, Henry A. The mouse that roared: Disney and the end of innocence. Lanham, Boulder, New York and Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield, 1999.

Grant, John. Encyclopedia of Walt Disney’s Animated Characters. New York: Hyperion, 1993.

Green, Howard E. The Tarzan Chronicles. New York: Hyperion, 1999.

Hiaasen, Carl. Team Rodent: How Disney Devours the World. New York: Ballantine, 1998.

Holliss, Richard and Brian Sibley. The Disney Studio Story. London: Octopus, 1988.

Hurter, Albert. He Drew As He Pleased. Intr. Ted Sears. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1948.

Iwerks, Leslie and John Kenworthy. The Hand behind The Mouse. New York: Disney Editions, 2001.

Johnston, Ollie and Frank Thomas. The Disney Villain. New York: Hyperion, 1993.

Koenig, David. More Mouse Tales: A closer peek backstage at Disneyland. Irvine, CA: Bonaventure, 1999.

Koenig, David. Mouse Tales: A behind-the-ears look at Disneyland. Irvine, CA: Bonaventure, 1994, 1995.

Koenig, David. Mouse Under Glass: Secrets of Disney Animation and Theme Parks. Irvine, CA: Bonaventure, 1997.

Krause, Martin and Linda Witkowski. Walt Disney’s Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs: An Art in Its Making. New York: Hyperion, 1994.

Kurtti, Jeff. The Art of Mulan. New York: Hyperion, 1998.

Kurtti, Jeff. Since The World Began: Walt Disney World – The First 25 Years. New York: Hyperion, 1996.

Lambert, Pierre. Mickey Mouse. New York: Hyperion, 1998.

Lambert, Pierre. Pinocchio. New York: Hyperion, 1997.

Maltin, Leonard (forord). Disneys samlede filmplakater. Oslo: Damm, 2003.

Maltin, Leonard. The Disney Films. 3rd edition. New York: Hyperion, 1995.

Marling, Karal Ann (editor). Designing Disney’s Theme Parks: The Architecture of Reassurance. Paris and New York: Flammarion, 1997.

Merritt, Russell and J. B. Kaufman. Walt in Wonderland. Gemona (Italy): Le Giornate del Cinema Muto / La Cineteca del Friuli, 1993.

Mosley, Leonard. Disney’s World. Lanham, MD: Scarborough House, 1990.

Rebello, Stephen. The Art of Pocahontas. New York: Hyperion, 1995.

Rebello, Stephen. The Art of The Hunchback of Notre Dame. New York: Hyperion, 1996.

Rebello, Stephen and Jane Healey. The Art of Hercules: The Chaos of Creation. New York: Hyperion, 1997.

Schickel, Richard. The Disney Version. 3rd edition. Chicago: Elephant Paperback / Ivan R. Dee, 1997.

Schweizer, Peter and Rochelle Schweizer. Disney: The Mouse Betrayed. Washington, D. C.: Regnery Publishing, 1998.

Sherman, Robert B. and Richard M. Sherman. Walt’s Time: from before to beyond. Santa Clarita, CA: Camphor Tree Publishers, 1998.

Smith, Dave. Disney A to Z: The Official Encyclopedia. New York: Hyperion, 1996.

Solomon, Charles. The Disney That Never Was. New York: Hyperion, 1995.

Taylor, Deems. Walt Disney’s Fantasia. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1940.

Thomas, Bob. The Art of Animation. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1958.

Thomas, Bob. Building a company: Roy O. Disney and the creation of an entertainment empire. New York: Hyperion, 1998.

Thomas, Bob. Disney’s Art of Animation from Mickey Mouse to Hercules. New York: Hyperion, 1997.

Thomas, Bob. Walt Disney: An American Original. New York: Hyperion, 1994.

Thomas, Frank and Ollie Johnston. Disney Animation: The Illusion of Life. New York: Abbeville, 1981.

Thomas, Frank and Ollie Johnston. Too Funny for Words. New York: Abbeville, 1987.

Thomas, Frank and Ollie Johnston. Walt Disney’s Bambi. New York: Stewart, Tabori and Chang, 1990.

Watts, Steven. The Magic Kingdom: Walt Disney and the American way of life. Boston and New York: Houghton Mifflin, 1997.

albert

[gl2686]

so Dinosaur is part of the animated canon? i didnt know that

[Escapay]

so Dinosaur is part of the animated canon?

No, though Disney has retroactively shoehorned it in and some people choose to believe so.

albert

[Neal]

so Dinosaur is part of the animated canon?

No, though Disney has retroactively shoehorned it in and some people choose to believe so.

albert

Disney also retroactively removed films during the 80s and no one talks about that. Fans accepted it and began to call what was then a change and a 'new' canon official. Why should adding a film be any different?

[Goliath]

Disney also retroactively removed films during the 80s and no one talks about that. Fans accepted it and began to call what was then a change and a 'new' canon official. Why should adding a film be any different?

Interesting, I never knew that. Which films would that be?

[Neal]

Several of the hybrid films were once canon.

That included "Song of the South" and "So Dear to my Heart".

Then, one day, they disappeared off the list and no one rejected it. It seems people have only gotten mad that they retroactively added a film.

To me, that's a double standard.

It makes more sense to add than subtract.

How can a film become unqualified over time?

For historical and political reasons (film didn't make enough money to be promoted through the list, etc.) a film can be kept off the list and when the original opponents are gone, the film can be rightfully added - but how can a film that once qualified suddenly lose its right?

[Goliath]

Several of the hybrid films were once canon.

That included "Song of the South" and "So Dear to my Heart".

Those films, like Mary Poppins, still have the words 'Walt Disney Classic' on their DVD covers. (SotS is available on DVD here in The Netherlands.) However, it's not in the 'official canon'. You're right: it doesn't make sense.

[akhenaten]

that's because they were lacking in titles to make the resume/legacy/catalogue seem more impressive (the validity of its inclusion is the fact that they were animated by the only animation team at disney). as they grow in numbers, lesser animated ones are pushed aside as a minority.maybe one day when they have enough live action-animation hybrid films, they too (including roger rabbit) will be part of a separate canon. one evidence being the reshuffling nightmare back into disney. ok im still partial about dinosaur but i wouldn't be surprised in 50 or 100 years time the disney and disney/pixar distinction will be deemed irrelevant (i mean seriously just called the building pixar and the team walt disney animation studios!) and we'll have to re-sort the canon.

[Chernabog_Rocks]

Those films, like Mary Poppins, still have the words 'Walt Disney Classic' on their DVD covers. (SotS is available on DVD here in The Netherlands.) However, it's not in the 'official canon'. You're right: it doesn't make sense.

You might be mixing up the Classics

For example your Mary Poppins reads Walt Disney Classic, which essentially means the classic Walt Disney film. Make sense? I'm not too sure how to explain this too well.

Anyways, second example. The classics like Cinderella, Snow White etc. have the word Animated in the title, thus showing a different line of classic.

So there's the Walt Disney Classic films and the Disney Animated Classics, of which there are roughly 40 something at the moment. Perhaps the ever wise Scaps can correct me on the number.

How can a film become unqualified over time?

I think perhaps because of the fact that they are hybrid films. If you notice around 90% (or more, my math sucks) of the DACs are fully animated. Taking the latin films into account they are dominantly animated from what I remember. So perhaps the ones your refering to just didn't have enough animation to make them count for being a DAC. It would be like letting Enchanted into the line kind of silly to put a film in the Animated classic line if there's only 10 minutes or so of animation.

[Nandor]

(SotS is available on DVD here in The Netherlands.)

It's not. It was available on VHS, never on DVD. The VHS did have the Classics-logo, though. Just wanted to clear that up.

[Goliath]

You might be mixing up the Classics [...] So there's the Walt Disney Classic films and the Disney Animated Classics, of which there are roughly 40 something at the moment. Perhaps the ever wise Scaps can correct me on the number.

Oooh, I did understand that distinction, but I only wanted to point out that both all-animated films like Cinderella and partial-animated films like Mary Poppins have the same qualification put on their DVD covers, namely: 'Walt Disney Classic'.

(SotS is available on DVD here in The Netherlands.)

It's not. It was available on VHS, never on DVD. The VHS did have the Classics-logo, though. Just wanted to clear that up.

Uhmm... YES, it is. I walk into a DVD store, I see Song of the South on DVD. So why are you saying it's not available on DVD in my country?

[Neal]

That might be bootleg. Technically it's available on DVD here in the states but not legally. There is a DVD floating around online that looks totally legit and Disney authorized but it is not.

[Goliath]

That might be bootleg. Technically it's available on DVD here in the states but not legally. There is a DVD floating around online that looks totally legit and Disney authorized but it is not.

Yes, I know it's not legal in the US, but as I repeatedly said: it's available on DVD where I live, in The Netherlands. (As it is in all of Europe.) And it's a legal print, it's available in all the major DVD chains. It has the Mickey Mouse 'certificate' on the side of the cover, indicating it's legit.

[Neal]

Hm, well I wouldn't know. I'm not an expert in the foreign DVD release department. I can say even bootleg DVDs can seem perfectly legit. Pirates have gotten very meticulously detailed at their craft.

[Goliath]

Hm, well I wouldn't know. I'm not an expert in the foreign DVD release department. I can say even bootleg DVDs can seem perfectly legit. Pirates have gotten very meticulously detailed at their craft.

I know, but I highly doubt 4 or 5 major chains of DVD stores would all have dozens of bootleg DVD's on their shelves...

Just do a search on the internet, it will tell you it's widely available, legally, in Europe and Asia.